The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.

ORDER :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Balassubramanya B.N., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

2. Defendant No.10 is the revision petitioner who has filed the present revision petition challenging the dismissal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in O.S.No.1526/2021.

3. The facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under

3.1. A suit in O.S.No.1526/2021 came to be filed on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mysuru with the following prayer in respect of following property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).

“The plaintiffs humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and Decree in their favour against the defendants as follows:

Judgment and Decree for 1/5 share in the schedule land by metes and bounds with mesne profits with cost of the suit.

To set-aside the sale deed executed by Defendant on 31-5-2004 registered on 2-8-2004 in I book, Dastavej No.MYN-1-05085-2004-05 and C.D. No.MYND 20 before the sub registrar(N) as null and void unenforceable, not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare the consent deed (Oppige Patra-in Kannada) made in respect of the suit schedule land and this deed executed by Defendant 1 to 4 and registered in Book No.1, Dastavej No.MYN-1- 09290/2007-08 C.D.Number MYND 151 on 5-9-2007 before the sub registrar Mysore (N), is illegal null and void unenforceable and the plaintiffs are not binding on them and on plaintiffs also.

To declare that the sale deed registered with respect to the suit schedule property on 12-3-2012 vide book no.1 Dastavej number MYN-1-28796- 2011-12 as C.D. Number MYND 313 on 12-3-2012 by Defendants No.9 in favour of 9^th Defendant is null and void unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs.

SCHEDULE

Dry landed property situated Mysore district, Mysore Taluk, Varuna Hobli, Varu village, bearing Sy.No.71/2 to an extent of 2 Acre 21 Guntas, bounded on

East by : P. Sundar's Land

West by : Road

North by : Land of Puttaswamy

South by : Land of Puttalingaiah”

4. The facts pleaded in the plaint would further reveal that the suit property earlier belonged to a common prepositous Doddamadaiah. He had three sons namely, Shambaiah, Puttarangaiah and Madaiah. There was a partition between the three sons. Plaintiffs claim that they are the wife and children of Shambaiah, one of the sons of Doddamadaiah, claiming their share as aforesaid.

5. After the Partition, Shambaiah said to have sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.9. It is further contented that all the sons of Doddamadaiah have sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.9 - M.S. Raghavendra by registered sale deed dated 02.08.2004.

6. Defendant No.9 inturn sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.10 by registered sale deed dated 12.03.2012 and thus, defendant No.10 became owner of the suit property.

7. It is further contented that plaintiffs being the wife and children of Shambaiah, having share in the suit property. Therefore, they laid the suit before the trial Court.

8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant No.10 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and also maintaining that plaintiffs have no right title or interest in respect of the suit property as Shambaiah along with his brothers joined hands and sold the property in favour of defendant No.9 by registered sale deed dated 02.08.2004 and suit filed in the year 2021 cannot be countenanced in law.

9. Plaintiffs filed the objection statement to the said application.

10. Learned trial Judge by impugned order dismissed the applicat